One of the common frustrations faced by a claimant in arbitration proceedings is having to deal with a recalcitrant respondent who refuses to pay the deposit required by the arbitral institution or tribunal. More often than not, in the interests of time, the claimant would have to fork out the money to pay the respondent’s portion of the deposit in order not to delay the proceedings.
Can the claimant refuse to pay the respondent’s portion and proceed to litigate in court instead of continuing with the arbitration? If it does so, can the respondent obtain a stay of the court proceedings on the basis that the dispute should be arbitrated despite previously refusing to pay the arbitration deposit? These issues were recently dealt with in a seminal judgment given by the Court of Appeal in JSB v ACSB [2023] 1 LNS 2176. Unless otherwise stated, the paras referred to below shall mean paras in this Court of Appeal judgment.
It appears that the right to grant an extension of time (“EOT“) can be implied into a contract, as was decided by the High Court in Era Kemuncak Jaya (M) Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Switchgear Sdn Bhd [2021] 1 LNS 1570. 
From the recent Court of Appeal decision in Rumaya Properties Sdn Bhd v Seacera Development Sdn Bhd [2023] 6 AMR 781, it appears possible to avoid liquidated and ascertained damages (“LAD”) by disabling oneself from performing and breaching the contract. 
There is usually no doubt as to who the employer is under the construction contract. But once in a while, a case like G-Pile System Sdn Bhd v CMMC Sdn Bhd [2021] 1 LNS 1727 comes along to show how things can go wrong when roles are fluid and proper documentation is lacking. 
Affirming a construction contract – instead of terminating it due to the contractor’s delay – resulted in the loss of entitlement to liquidated and ascertained damages (“LAD”). This was one of the grounds for dismissing a LAD claim in the recent High Court case of Universiti Tecknologi MARA v Magna Metier Sdn Bhd [2022] 5 AMR 583. 
Concurrent delay is usually considered in the context of extension of time (“EOT”) to complete construction works. In RC Asia Engineering Sdn Bhd v Lion Pacific Sdn Bhd [2021] 1 LNS 1667 however, the High Court had occasion to consider concurrent delay – or overlapping delay – in the assessment of reasonable time to complete such works. 
Enforcement of an arbitral tribunal interim measure was refused in a recent case for being incompatible with the powers of Court.
The Federal Court recently decided that a condition attached to the approved building plans had to be interpreted in an engineering context, and not in its plain language.